by Nicole Auerbach, USA TODAY Sports

by Nicole Auerbach, USA TODAY Sports

For decades, a dispute has raged about whether baseball broadcasters should tell viewers when a no-hitter is in progress â?? and whether that constitutes a jinx.

Basketball's closest equivalent may not merit such a raucous debate.

USA TODAY Sports asked some of college basketball's most prominent broadcasters calling NCAA tournament games what they do when a player is perfect from the free throw line, and game is in its final moments.

How often does the thought cross his mind that he could be jinxing the player by mentioning his previous performance in a high-stakes moment? Are there unwritten rules on this, like with no-hitters?

The responses were unanimous.

No, they don't think about the jinx. And no, there are no unwritten rules.

"I read a book when I was a young broadcaster by Red Barber, the great broadcaster," Kevin Harlan said. "He said, 'I'm not a dealer in superstition, I'm a reporter.' If a kid is 10-for-10 from the line, I'll say he's 10-for-10 from the line. I can't tell you how often they miss. I do feel bad. But I read that when I was young, and it's always kind of stuck with me."

Marv Albert agreed.

"Even when I listened to baseball as a kid, I felt you had to say it was a no-hitter," he said. "In basketball, when someone is perfect from the line, you have to say it. I know whoever I'm working with â?? particularly (former Indiana Pacers great) Reggie Miller â?? will say, 'Oh, you jinxed it.' I'll say, 'Reggie, there's no such thing! He's not listening to us.' I have to get that through his head.

"I think you have to give that information. â?¦ Otherwise, you're not being a reporter."

Miller hates it â?? every single time.

"Marv and Kevin will always do, when a guy has 7-for-7, 10-for-10 going for the game, they'll say it," Miller said. "When he misses, I'm the first guy to say, 'Way to jinx him.' As a player, I'd listen to games and it would happen almost every single time.

"That's the Cardinal rule. You don't do that. You know he has it going on. Just say he's perfect from the line. Don't say he's 7-for-7."

Miller's efforts to win over his colleagues have proved fruitless; he lamented, "They never want to listen to me."

Miller's contention is that the stat is the jinx. He's OK with the use of the word "perfect," just not the exact shooting numbers.

"What was that thing Oprah said?" Miller said. "You put it out in the universe and things come back to you. It's karma. Don't throw it out there."

Miller's colleagues chuckle at the thought that they could actually influence a game. Verne Lundquist said his job is to keep viewers current. He doesn't hesitate announcing that a player is 5-for-5 from the line, or 8-for-8 from the field. He'll even mention stat lines as players approach double-doubles.

"There are no hard and fast rules about what we say and what we don't," Lundquist said. "It's just us. I think every guy's probably got his own system.

"It comes up always at the free-throw line. That always happens. A guy shoots 88% (on the season), and he's 4-for-4 today. Clank. â?¦ If a guy's on a perfect hot streak, I'll mention it."

Despite his best efforts, there's one rather famous example of Lundquist not mentioning it.

Lundquist called the 1992 Duke-Kentucky East regional final alongside Len Elmore, a game many consider one of the best â?? if not the best â?? in college basketball history. For nearly 45 minutes, Christian Laettner had been perfect. Before taking his famous final shot, he was 9-for-9 from the field and 10-for-10 from the free throw line.

It was never mentioned on the broadcast.

Lundquist didn't realize Laettner's perfect stat line until he got a copy of the box score after the game ended. Lundquist's statistician had been so wrapped up in the game â?? "we were all caught up in the game," Lundquist said â?? that he never wrote that stat down and handed it to Lundquist.

"He just forgot to tell me," Lundquist said.

But every time Lundquist is aware of a stat, he said he shares it. Like Albert who said, "I play no part in the game," Lundquist believes the idea of a broadcaster having any sort of influence over free throws made or a game's outcome is fairly ridiculous.

He compared it to the Sports Illustrated cover jinx.

"It was born after the fact that it kept happening," Lundquist said. "But it's silly."â??